CC 10-25-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 16 . Councilmember Larson seconded the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. Case #99-20, Apache Group, 1787 Gateway Boulevard, Planned Unit Development Amendment Ms. Randall eXplained that the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to the planned unit development to relocate the signage on a building located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, The three buildings on this property each have one free standing sign with the address. The free standing sign at this building also includes thc company name and logo, The Zoning Ordinance requires that a sign plan be submitted in the conjunction with site plans in the Gateway Business District that show the location, type, size, and design of the individual signs. When the plmmed unit development was originally approved in 1997, two signs were shown at the entrance on the east side of the building. The Planning Commission memo, for Planning Case #97-06, dated July 2, 1997, stated that each building would have one free standing sign and two business signs which are 60 square teet in area, at each ofthe four entries to the building. This building, however, does not have four entries, thus the number of signs shown on the plan were only two for the north east entrance. However, the building does lend itself to having additional doors in the future. . The building currently has an angled front entry facing to the soutlleast The applicant was requesting the ability to move one of the signs from the east entrance to the south side of the building next to the angled entryway. This would be a more visible location and customers would be able to see the sign from the public street The applicant was willing to give up one ofthe signs at the northeast entrance in lieu ofthe new proposed sign. Staff would recommend that the applicant be allowed to keep the signage on cithcr side of the entrances in addition to the proposed sign. The building would have a total of three signs, which is still under the number of signs on the other two buildings which have up to eight signs. This would give the applicant the ability to modify the signage without a planned unit development amendment in the future if tenants change, Ms, Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #99-20, Planned Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a 60 square foot sign on the south side ofthe building located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, and that the applicant be allowed one free standing sign and two wall signs, which arc 60 square feet in area, at each entryway to the building for a total of 480 square fcet of signage on the building, which is less than 10 percent of the building facade as required by the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Probst asked if lighting was included for the proposed sign. Ms, Randall stated that the . sign would not be illuminated. She indicated that none ofthe existing signs are illuminated. She did not believe that the City had any restrictions on sign lighting, however, the applicant would have to abide by the Lighting Ordinance and the lighting requirements in the Sign Ordinance,